CODE 4

[Chrisbis]

Hi John.
Can you tell me please, and all the others reading this Interesting Topic, what was the reason for the Lost Game?

Was it early on in the Series of results, or was it because that 'Game' fell outside the scope of the Recovery Progression You are playing?

cheers C
Edit:-
I like Ur Psychology of playing 1001 games, and showing 1000 won, as against 1000 games and 'only' having 999 won!!
Great posting! 

[Johnlegend]

Hi John.
Can you tell me please, and all the others reading this Interesting Topic, what was the reason for the Lost Game?

Was it early on in the Series of results, or was it because that 'Game' fell outside the scope of the Recovery Progression You are playing?

cheers C
Edit:-
I like your Psychology of playing 1001 games, and showing 1000 won, as against 1000 games and 'only' having 999 won!!
Great posting! 

No Chris it was an ordinary game, it fell after a magnificent streak of 642 wins. So it was game 643. Now don't get me wrong I had recorded losses BEFORE I met one in REAL PLAY. But they were outside my 2 BY 2 play application. Had I played as others were doing, long 10 plus game sessions. My strikerate would now be 990/11 or worse. The whole point is to illustrate the value of playing SHORT HIT AND RUN sessions. Its the ONLY WAY to beat this game longterm with a sub 100 unit risk.

Yes 1000 is the ultimate bench mark for me. I have dreamed of that strikerate for the last decade. But have never achieved it until now. Whether THE REVERSE SLIDE can match it remains to be seen.

[Robeenhuut]

Hello

Dont be 2 greedy here  . Anything that approaches this strike rate is a gem. F its 1500/1  or 1000/1 its irrelevant.  U r way ahead.  Do d math 


Regards

[Johnlegend]

Hello

don't be 2 greedy here  . Anything that approaches this strike rate is a gem. F its 1500/1  or 1000/1 its irrelevant.  U r way ahead.  Do d math 


Regards

Exactly Robeenhuut. I would be content with a consistent 160/1 but the fact that 1000/1 is possible is a great bonus. The chances are I wont make another 1000/1. But as you said You are way ahead at this point. Even if I lost five times in the next 1000 games I am way, way ahead.

[artattack]

John, just looking at your results.

With 1000 games played and only 507 wins on the 1st step, unless my math is way out, then it would be far more advantageous to bet FOR the dozen rather than against it on the 1st step only.

This would mean 493 wins at 2 to 1  rather than 1 to 2.

It also makes the rest of the progression a little easier.

But I am not too sure how the rest of the bets would handle the extra 14 losses.

I have been monitoring this system for some time and testing with real spins live wheel (while I play other systems) without betting, although I have not tested my above statement/observation.

I have just started placing bets on this system using 1/1/  3/3  15/15  27/27 so will see how it goes.

I have been testing continuous bets, and have seen just the one loss and that would put me way ahead if I had been betting.

I do play my systems hit and run as they say, It is more out of convenience rather than a method, I do not like to use that term as it seems to ruffle feathers.

I just play for 20 spins and that is it, I get fed up if I sit for too long.

End of session, so playing this continuous that results in a 4 unit win every session.

Nice one AMK

Arthur.

[amk]

Hello artattack............

Just an initial quick brainstorm about your approach............

4rth pattern we are betting against is 3231............

Now we bet that one of the dozens will land win the four spins?

Progression is 1,2,4,8.......

Will have to research if this can really work some how, if it can.......................

[artattack]

it was just the 1st step of code 4 where john only had 507 wins out of 1001 sessions, that is 50% ish, this suggests to me that we are better off betting that the 1st step will hit, rather than against it

The problem though  based on johns results is there will be a further 15 losses after the 1st step for the rest of the progression to handle.
I am starting to test this, but it will take quite some time at 20 lives spins per session.  I am not too keen on recorded spins, (great for a quick test to see if it has merit) I like to use what I can see.

So with a code of  3 A 2 B  we would bet that the 1st step, the 3rd doz actually hits, and if it looses  then bet against the rest   A 2 B

Arthur.





 

[artattack]

OK, just one more observation on code 4 for the moment.

I think some codes are stronger than others.

This is a session I have just played.

2B1A   first 4 spins
3A2o   won on 1st step  1/1 3/3 9/9 27/27
3C1A   no bet on this because of the zero above
3B1C   won on 2nd step with double stakes 2/2 6/6 18/18 54/54

I had doubled my stake on the 1st step  (2/2) because I see this as  a   stronger code.
Why stronger?  because of the two  3rd dozens in the 1st column I have noticed the rarity
of this type of formation and the two 3rd dozens becoming three.
2B1A
3A2o
3C1A
3B1C 

I did lose on the 1st step, but won my double stake on the next. 2/2 6/6 18/18 54/54

Now I see the next code even stronger, we have three 3rd dozens and two 1 dozens in the  code

2B1A
3A2o
3C1A
3B1C
3C3C   Again lost on the 1st step, but won on 2nd I played 2/2 6/6 18/18 54/54

I would normally end my session after 20 spins, but felt that the next code was also very strong
We now have four 3rd dozens in a row and two column Cs


2B1A
3A2o
3C1A
3B1C
3C3C
1NNN  Won on 1st step again using double stakes[/color] 2/2 6/6 18/18 54/54 and ended my session.So I do feel that some codes are stronger than others and are worth the increase in stake.Arthur.




         

[amk]

Look what I found...................

link:://roulette.uk.net/quick-win-roulette-systems/code-4/

[GLC]

Arty,

I appreciate your thoughts on this system.

Looks to me like we should play for the same dozen or column to win.  Flat bet and you're a winner.

You will win 494 out 1001 bets.  That means you will lose 507 and win 494X2=988 - 507 = +481.

You could also play all the 2nd bets.  You'd lose 300 and win 194X2 = 388 - 300 = +88.

Not as good results, so I wouldn't bet the 2nd bet.  Just be satisfied with the wins on the 1st bet.

Am I missing something here?

GLC

[donik7777]

Hello GLC!
How do you count profit? Why you multiply 492x2?
Thanks.

[artattack]

That is just how I see it on the 1st bet.

I have been playing  5/5  15/15  45/45  135/135  Total risk  400.

results so far  32 sessions

16    1st step wins        80
10    2nd step wins       50
5      3rd  step wins       25
1      4th step win            5

won so far 160, but still a long way from 1st bank.

Now, I have also been monitoring betting for the 1st column, these would be the results.

Playing     5    10/10  30/30  90/90  total risk 265

28 sessions

16  1st step wins  160
7    2nd step wins  35
4    3rd step wins   20
1    4th step wins     5

Would have won so far  220   only  45 short of 1st bank.

What seems strange in Johns records and mine is even though on the 1st bet we have a 2-1 chance of hitting it, we are only getting 50%.

Strangely enough I do not feel like betting the 2nd system i.e  for the 1st column.

This has got to be a human thing, the figures say otherwise.

I will monitor for 50 sessions then decide.

Unless John has these details in his records.

Arthur.

[Johnlegend]

That is just how I see it on the 1st bet.

I have been playing  5/5  15/15  45/45  135/135  Total risk  400.

results so far  32 sessions

16    1st step wins        80
10    2nd step wins       50
5      3rd  step wins       25
1      4th step win            5

won so far 160, but still a long way from 1st bank.

Now, I have also been monitoring betting for the 1st column, these would be the results.

Playing     5    10/10  30/30  90/90  total risk 265

28 sessions

16  1st step wins  160
7    2nd step wins  35
4    3rd step wins   20
1    4th step wins     5

Would have won so far  220   only  45 short of 1st bank.

What seems strange in Johns records and mine is even though on the 1st bet we have a 2-1 chance of hitting it, we are only getting 50%.

Strangely enough I do not feel like betting the 2nd system i.e  for the 1st column.

This has got to be a human thing, the figures say otherwise.

I will monitor for 50 sessions then decide.

Unless John has these details in his records.

Arthur.

Arthur you make some valid points. I began my career with this game betting on a single dozen with a method called THE ZONE. Why I dont bet for the dozen on this one is my first 1000 games is only a relatievely SMALL SAMPLE. I think youll get no argument against that. Especially from the sceptics who maintain a method must stand against millions of spins to be worth its salt/hype.

If however I reach a point (for me 5,000 PLAYED GAMES) where I see a very solid consistency in the breakdown of hits on the first and second steps of the progression. Then playing for the single dozen will make more sense. In terms of outlay and recovery. Believe it or not even after all these years, and the success ive had playing this game. I never become complacent. I have seen people do that to get anihilated by our little friend random. But then again they were always making the cardinal sin. PLAYING AGAINST THE LAYOUT.
So as I said I will always go with the best deal on the table. I still only have one loss in play on my records for this superb method but now 12 losses recorded. But in the last week I have been pushed to step 4 of the progression a dis-proportionate number of times. Compaired to my first 1000 games. So its still very early days for this method. That said it remains until now the only time I have achieved and incredible 1000/1 strikerate. I will update after breakfast. So you can see what I have been talking about.

[Johnlegend]

it was just the 1st step of code 4 where john only had 507 wins out of 1001 sessions, that is 50% ish, this suggests to me that we are better off betting that the 1st step will hit, rather than against it

The problem though  based on johns results is there will be a further 15 losses after the 1st step for the rest of the progression to handle.
I am starting to test this, but it will take quite some time at 20 lives spins per session.  I am not too keen on recorded spins, (great for a quick test to see if it has merit) I like to use what I can see.

So with a code of  3 A 2 B  we would bet that the 1st step, the 3rd doz actually hits, and if it loses  then bet against the rest   A 2 B

Arthur.

Well with my numbers Arthur, if we had played my results for the pattern on STEP 1 ONLY. We would have lost 507 units and won 988 units. Giving a net profit of 481 units. Looking at it in these terms. It looks like a holy one playing for the pattern. KING ARTHUR, might be the name you go by should this hold up over the longterm. And I see no reason why is shouldnt. It would take 666 hits on step 1 just to cause a break even situation. Which I cannot see ever happening. The devils advocate indeed.,,,
Any thoughts guys? ? And this is how you would prove beyond doubt that an RNG is not random. If you get more than 666 hits on STEP 1 on an RNG. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt its more rigged than an oil rig.

P.S And those figures are to level stakes. Very interesting to say the least. HOLY GRAIL? ?

[amk]

Helllo aurthur,

Welcome to the "round" table...............

You bring a lot of magic.............